Henry Clay presents his 1850 compromise to the Senate. Presiding
in the background is future President Millard Fillmore. John
C. Calhoun is to the right of Fillmore, and Daniel Webster,
with head in hand, to the left of Clay. Drawing by Peter Rothermel,
image courtesy of Political Science Dept, College of New Jersey.

by William B. Fox
last updated June 15, 2006

Introduction

American opinion has never before been so tangled, confused,
and self-contradictory. Today's leaders routinely advocate policies
that are the exact opposite of the principles of America's Founding
Fathers on many timeless issues.

One very basic issue is your ability to learn the truth and
your freedom to choose things that are healthy for you and aid
your long term survival and prosperity.

The view of reality fostered by national media today for "the
masses" is far more artificial than the high-sugar, high-fat,
overly refined, heavily labeled, and sometimes even very mildly
carcinogenic packaged junk food that fills most grocery store
shelves.

It gets even worse when we look beyond food markets at other
markets such as human labor markets and capital markets, where
government intervention, subsidy, and regulation in favor of
specially privileged crony interests force you to buy or involve yourself with questionable things and prevent you from discriminating against
the moral equivalent of mildly poisonous junk food. In many
subtle and not so subtle ways government does far more to damage
you than protect you in the long run.

I have developed an approach that explains the contradictions
and highlights the omissions based on dualities found in scientific
disciplines. A number of people have told me that this approach
has really helped them sort things out and see through national
media disinformation. This approach also helps to explain the
book selections in our catalog, and how they fit together like
pieces of a jig-saw puzzle to provide a coherent worldview.

First, before describing my model, I would like to address some
examples of current ideological confusion and make a provocative
point.

An overview of some contemporary contradictions
and paradoxes — and a punch line

Throughout history virtually all peoples naturally tend to favor
the survival of their own ethno-racial groups. They believe
that they have a legitimate, honorable, and even non-negotiable
duty to defend their own people against cultural identity obliteration
and genocide.

In this era of political correctness, it is perfectly acceptable
for a Jewish person, Indian, Mestizo, or other nonwhite to openly
stand up for their own group survival, but across America whites
have been programmed to routinely denounce fellow whites as
"racists" for taking a similar position. They are
vilified as "bigots" for advocating anything other
than passively accepting the massive illegal third world immigration which has physically replaced over thirty million white Americans in the last two decades.

"Illegal" normally means something bad, and "replacement"
normally means genocide, but whites are expected to accept these
things as positives in the name of "diversity." Interestingly,
Americans were never asked to vote for "diversity,"
and the alleged benefits of increasing racial fragmentation
in America have hardly been proven. In fact, quite the opposite,
as I will discuss when I get to the environmental vs. genetic
duality later in this article.

When we dig deeper, we find a similar contradictions and a decoupling
from reality across a broad spectrum of political and economic
issues in America today. Take for example the issue of having
a central bank.

The French philosopher Voltaire once observed that fiat money,
that is, paper money unsecured by any hard asset and that is
simply willed as legal tender by the government that creates
it, has always been abused by politicians and bankers, and has
always returned to its intrinsic value — which is zero.
In the early 19th century, American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson
and Andrew Jackson stated that while it may be a necessary evil
to inflate with fiat money in wartime as a last ditch means
to finance national defense, it is dangerously irresponsible
to tolerate a central bank that creates inflationary fiat currency
in peacetime. They strenuously fought against the existence
of central banks throughout their public careers.

Not only is debauchment of the currency a form of destruction
of public property, but central bank inflation, which is typically
authorized behind closed doors, destroys purchasing power just
as if people were being taxed. Since America's privately owned
central bank — The Federal Reserve Banking System —
makes its decisions behind closed doors about changes to the
money supply and bank credit, this is in actuality a form of
secretive, non-elected government by decree. This is taxation
without representation. This is also a totalitarian repudiation
of the free market principles that once set interest rates in
the 19th century.

America has been saddled with a central bank since 1913. The
Federal Reserve Banking System has succeeded in destroying well
over 95% of the value of the dollar through inflation. Not only has the
Fed fulfilled all the worst fears of such early American leaders
as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, but it now threatens
to go into hyperinflation (please note the out of control government
spending and debt growth curves in the Grandfather Economic
Report charts provided in the Critical Issues section). Despite
all of this, no major media financial writers dare to publicly
challenge the underlying philosophical basis of the Fed, but
instead limit the bounds of their discussions to the relative
merits of "heavy" and "lite" approaches
by the Fed in regard to manipulating interest rates and aggregate
money supply figures.

As a third example, let us consider that the U.S. Government
was founded as a secular limited republic. It had a clear separation
between church and state. Part of this separation was inspired
by the rationalist influence of the Enlightenment compared to
bad historical experiences the English had suffered with both
Catholic absolutists and fundamentalist Puritans. In addition,
there is no explicitly stated Constitutional authority whatsoever
to provide foreign aid, engage in permanent foreign entanglements,
or to provide domestic public charity. Let us also consider
that under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not explicitly grants
to the U.S. Government are reserved for the states.

In its foreign policy, America has continually inflamed the
Arab world by providing permanent aid to the chauvinistic, belligerent,
exclusively Jewish state of Israel for over fifty years. This
substantially theocratic, questionably democratic, highly socialistic,
routinely deceptive, and largely Mossad-run foreign state now
receives aid approaching ten billion dollars a year, "balanced"
by billions of extra dollars America pays to Egypt as a bribe
to make peace with Israel, not to mention bribes routinely paid
to placate other Arab governments.

According to an article that appeared in the American Free
Press, in cumulative total the direct aid, back-door
bribery to Arab states, and indirect costs related to Israel have
amounted to over four trillion dollars since the Jewish state
became independent in 1948. The four trillion estimate includes the indirect costs
of oil shocks in the 1970's created by Arab furor over American
support for Israel during the Yom Kipper War, as well as costs
related to America's clear support for Israel while it has invaded
and occupied Iraq at the longstanding behest of Jewish neo-conservatives
in Washington on the pretext of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
(cf. The High Priests of War by Michael
Collins Piper; also the report released in March 2006 by Harvard University and University of
Chicago which came to a similar conclusion that America's policy
was motivated principally by Israel's Jewish Lobby in America).

In regard to public charity, Congressman Davy Crockett once defeated
a Congressional bill to provide a pension supplement to the widow
of a military hero with his famous "Sockdolager"
speech. He explained that it was a breach of the government's
contract with the people to engage in any form of public charity.
Back in those days, Americans engaged in massive charity on a
private level in their local communities. They felt that private
charities did a vastly better job of performing charitable work
than government bureaucracy. Why should the state, with all of
its ominous police power to tax, to use deadly force, to play
political favorites, and to engage in bureaucratic self-dealing
and inefficiency, be allowed to squeeze out the private sector
in providing charitable assistance?

Since the mid-1960's the U.S. Government has doled out trillions
of dollars in welfare programs to both American citizens and illegal
aliens alike. The government escalates its largesse despite the
fact that all these programs are bankrupting the country. The
government has already destroyed the credibility of America's
social security program for baby boomers. Worse yet, America has
a far bigger underclass, more real unemployment, and less general
productivity today than when these programs started.

If any major media commentators today publicly dared to question
the underlying legitimacy of America's aid to Israel, its welfare
largesse, the existence of the Fed, or the right of white people
in America to avoid their own ethnic cleansing, they would be
immediately smeared as bigots or lunatics and thrown out of their
jobs. No wonder we live in an extremely distorted society on the
hell bound train to social and economic ruin.

And now the punch line

In the long run, a multi-racial, multi-cultural
society that puts the interests of aliens ahead of its nuclear
population and traditional core values, and which steadily expands
a leftist government and an inflationary central bank regime in
order to keep this whole game going — will eventually collapse.
Eventually it will fall behind other countries in industrial competitiveness.
It will debauch its currency and will suffer massive social dysfunction.

All of this is should become very evident to a rational, well
educated, well-rounded, free thinking person. So much so, in fact,
that consistently pursuing what became the centerpiece of America
policy in the 20th century takes on the odor of sheer crookedness.

In the 20th century, America's destiny was guided by some very
powerful special interests who were certainly intelligent enough
to understand all of this. Many of them attended America's best
universities. They were better financed than anyone else to command
the best intellectual resources on this planet, if in fact, finding
and openly acting on truth had been their primary objective. Despite
all of this, they went ahead and gambled America's future prosperity
with their extremely dysfunctional and self-destructive long term
policies anyway in order to suit their own shorter term, narrow,
selfish interests. And we are now entering a dark period in American
history where the general public will have hell to pay for all
this.

Tragically, so many Americans have been so deeply indoctrinated
with a leftist, top down viewpoint for several generations —
to the exclusion of other viewpoints — that they simply
cannot comprehend all of this. They cannot begin to take adequate
self-protective measures even on an individualized or local community
level. They are so entirely ignorant regarding the genetic viewpoint,
that I cover in some depth elsewhere, that they cannot make many
meaningful intellectual connections between leftist, authoritarian
social policies and eventual cultural, economic, and political
failures.

Creating a model to balance, broaden, and reconcile
political and economic debates

Scientists and engineers routinely try to identify
trade-off variables. For example, when a mechanical engineer adds
weight to a car frame to make it safer in a crash, he reduces
gas mileage. As I explain again later in my section that covers
republican theory, there are no free lunches in political science
or economics either. Every time a policy moves in a certain direction,
we usually sacrifice something important somewhere else.

If scientists can identify two dualities that apply to a common
phenomenon, they can then create a "matrix" to that
helps them understand how the variables trade off against each
other. If they can find a third trade-off duality, they can even
compare them with a "cube" graph, which I will create
in this paper.

As a first step, we need to find a way to take terms such as "left,
"right," "autocratic," "freedom,"
"patriotism" and "corruption" frequently found
in political literature in fit them into opposing parameters.

Next, we need to find scientific terms for our parameters. It
helps our analytical abilities to take out the emotion and achieve
a good "socket fit" with solid academic research.

"Left" and "right" seem to correspond best
with the "environmental" vs. "genetics" debate
in psychology. "Autocratic" and "freedom"
seem to fit in with the "top down" vs. "bottom
up" duality in the management sciences. "Patriotism"
and "corruption" seem to fit in with the "altruism/mutualism"
vs "predator/parasite" duality in sociobiology, which
I simplify to "mutualism" vs. "parasitism."

Next, we construct our matrix, which I have created below. Please
note that I have chosen to assign "environmental vs. genetic"
to our "x" axis, "top down vs. bottom up"
to our "y" axis, and "mutualism vs. parasitism"
lies on our "z" axis.

The diagram above should also include a "z" axis
sloping backwards as in a perspective drawing to create a
cube effect, entailing the "altruist/mutualist"
vs "predator/parasite" (or "mutualism"
vs. "parasitism" for short) duality of sociobiology. Ideally, we could also use one last dimension "strong" vs. "weak."

Explaining
the nomenclature for "centralized" vs. "decentralized"

Looking first at our "y" axis, the term "centralized"
usually means "more top down." It also has a loose
association with a whole garden variety of interesting terms,
such as "central planning," "headquarters-directed,"
"authoritarian," "autocratic," "conglomerated,"
"corporatized," "regimented," "militarized,"
"caesarism," "imperialist," and "fascistic."

In regard to social behavior, I even see some linkages with
terms such as "Big Brother," "alpha male control
freak baboon," and "egomaniac" for people on
the top, and "theory `x' externally-directed personalities"
and "servile" for people on the bottom.

On the other end of this management science dualilty, "decentralized"
tends to mean "more bottom up." It also has loose
but significant associations with its own garden patch of interesting
popular terms, such as "libertarian," "entrepreneur,"
"sole proprietor," "individual initiative,"
"freedom," "democratic," "independence,"
"secession," and "insubordination."

In regard to social behavior, I see linkages with terms such
as "self-actualizer," "innovator," "rugged
individualist," and "theory `y' internally directed
personalities." In
regard to economics literature, I see linkages with terms such
as "free market," "laissez faire," "Austrian
economics," "entrepreneurial infrastructure,"
"task organization," "matrix management,"
"spontaneous order" (latter term courtesy of nobel
laureate Friedrich Hayek), and "close to the customer,"
"productivity through people," "hands-on, value-driven,"
and "simple form, lean staff" (courtesy of In
Search of Excellence authors Thomas Peters and Robert
Waterman).

The environmental vs genetic duality

Moving over to our "x" axis, "environmental"
usually means "leftist." It also has a loose but significant
association with "Neo-Jacobinism," "progressivism,"
"internationalism" (meaning the repudiation of tribal
nationalism), "collectivism," "socialism,"
and to a lessor extent "anarchism" (atomized individuality
without tribal loyalties) and "nurturance" (environmental
reinforcement without heredity). It takes the view that human
behavior is entirely learned, or "nurtured," rather
than instinctive. It views people as if they are perfectly equal,
interchangeable, programmable units just waiting for the right
leaders or ideology to show the way. For communists, the right
leader might include some comrade Chairman of the proletarian
revolution. For anarcho-libertarians, the "right ideology"
might involve Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the
free market, which shows atomized, raceless, de-ethnicized individuals
the way to go.

At the other end of this social science duality, the term "genetic"
usually means "rightist." This term has a loose but
significant association with such terms as "conservative,"
"nationalist," "traditional," "tribal,"
"ancestral," "aristocratic," "rugged
individualist" (inspired by ones own unique heredity),
"meritocracy", "competition," and "nature."
Here, people are distinguished by their hereditary uniqueness
as individuals as well as their uniqueness as part of a broader
kinship group related by blood (followed by race, ethnicity,
culture, language, heritage, and religion) that is different
from other groups.

Rightists typically believe that genetics comprise a highly constraining
factor in both the performance and character of specific individuals
and groups. In other words, some groups tend to be naturally
just dumber, lazier, more inefficient, more authoritarian, more
collectivistic, or even more "crooked" than others
(or some combination of all of the aforementioned). These traits
can be traced back to different evolutionary selective factors,
such as the genetic sculpturing influence of frost zone areas
of the planet as opposed to tropical areas, the amount of evolutionary
time spent in highly urbanized, multi-racial, or over-populated
environments, or different reproductive rates of people in different
niches in society.

On the positive side, rightists also believe that people with
shared ancestry and culture are more likely to deeply understand
each other and form more cohesive and productive groups. One
finds an emphasis on shared values in a wide variety of organizations,
whether or not their leaders happen to be consciously "leftist"
or "rightist," ranging from management consultant
diagrams with "shared values" in the center, as in
the famous McKinsey
7-S framework for organizational success (p. 10, In
Search of Excellence) to training methods designed
to build teamwork and group pride on sports teams and in the
military.

Paradoxically, increased group cohesion can become a vital factor
in the defense of individual liberty. As one example, in one
of his lectures,
libertarian author Dr. Ralph Raico pointed out that there was
very little immigration to America between 1700 and the American
Revolution, yet the population increased threefold from natural
multiplication. The extensive kinship and cultural ties of an
overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Nordic) population of
the New England colonies provided the grass roots cohesive strength
and informal support necessary to resume the Cromwellian side
of the English Civil War in America beginning at Lexington and
Concord in 1775. I explain this in some detail in my "History
Reinterpreted" discussion.

The crooked factor

We need to add our third dimension. For
the "z" axis I have derived the altruist/symbiotist
vs. predator/parasite duality in sociobiology. For the sake
of convenience, I call this the "mutualism" vs. "parasitism"
duality.

"Mutualism" is a scientific term usually applied to
animal and plant populations who live in close association and
benefit each other. Obviously when we try to apply this concept
to human affairs with popular terminology we are unlikely to
find exact language. I think that it is roughly similar to our
concept of a human "producer." However, there are
many ways that humans can benefit each other, whether it involves
exchanging things of real value with each other in an open and
fair way, or by unselfishly defending and nurturing each other,
or by remaining respectful of each other's lives, property,
and other interests.

"Mutualism" implies a style of leadership where the
most powerful people and the least powerful individuals can
grow together, rather than an exploitive relationship where
the most powerful people work to monopolize and squeeze out
their competition or suck everything out of their subordinates.
Therefore I can also relate the "mutualism" concept
to many different popular terms, such as "altruist,"
"open," "honest," "unselfish,"
"benefactor," "brotherhood," "balance
of power," "limited powers," "guaranteed
rights," "principled," "self-restrained,"
"republican," "patriot," "martyr,"
"hero," "chivalry," "sportsmanship,"
"honor," "protector," "shared genetic
interests," "supporting genetic fitness," and
"eugenic." (If the latter three terms seem strange
to the reader, I cover them in more detail in my environmental
vs. genetics discussion. I also explain in some detail how the
political term "republican" can fit into all of this).

The word "parasitism" usually applies to animal and
plant populations who live in close association where one species
lives as the expense of the other. I think that a good approximation
in human affairs is the term "criminal." Other terms
that have varying levels of similarity or association include
"selfish," "deceptive," "enemy,"
"thievery," "untrustworthy," "exploitive,"
"greedy," "unscrupulous," "lawbreaker,"
"sponger," "deadbeat," "wise-guy,"
"corrupt," "traitor," "tyrant,"
"working against your interests," "unrestrained,"
"totalitarian,""monopolist" (implying viciously
selfish and destructive competition), "dysgenic,"
and "undermining genetic interests and genetic fitness."

Speaking of genetics, the parasite concept should not be confused
with a child who lives at the expense of his parents. The child
offers the chance of long term genetic survival to his parents,
whereas the parasite undermines the long term genetic interests
of its host and may even drive it into extinction.

The last dimension: "strong" vs. "weak"

I mean this as not only as a "Misc. Other" catchall for anything I have left out, but also to capture the sense of "adequate," "sufficient," "superior," and "competent" vs. inadequate, insufficient, and incompetent.

This is an important factor to help explain social and political behavior. For example, in his book Why Civilizations Self Destruct, Dr. Pendell explains that societies tend to go into decline when the ratio of incompetent and nonproductive people gets too large relative to the numbers of competent, productive people who have to shoulder the burden of running things.

"Envy" implies a political condition where the weak seek to pull down the strong. Envy has been an increasingly important factor in American politics since the mid-19th century. For example, in the "Handling Real Nazis" section of Chapter 34 of the Mission of Conscience series, I describe how Jews did a fantastic job in the 20th century of mobilizing the envy of Irish and Italian Catholics against WASPs in the big cities and getting them to shill for them. Wilmot Robertson covers this envy factor from a similar angle when he talks about the envy factor in the "Liberal Minority Coalition" in his landmark work The Dispossessed Majority. The "politics of envy" has always been the bread and butter of the Left in America.

"Weakness" can play an important role in ideological leanings. Generally speaking, as people become weaker, their ideological leanings tend to trend more to the left. For example, according to a 1990's American Enterprise Institute study, "minorities" in America such as women, Jews, blacks, and homosexuals tend to vote as a group about one standard statistical deviation to the left of straight white men in America. Needless to say, "minorities" by definition tend to view themselves as "weaker" than majorities.

"Weakness" can also apply to to various forms of mental dysfunction. As people become more neurotic or otherwise dysfunctional, they tend to increasingly adhere to "retreatist" social, political, economic, and religious philosophies. They tend to become increasingly less concerned about 'reality tests" and more focused on how ideas "feel" to them. "Stinky liberal" social philosophies tend to stick in their "mushy" brains like flies on fly paper.

The strong vs. weak paradigm also works the other way around from envy, where strong people move against weak people for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology, except that they despise weak people simply for their particular weaknesses.

I have not written a section on the "strong" vs. "weak" paradigm yet, but if I were to do so, it would essentially involve an overview of the general decline in the innate quality of the U.S. population over the last two hundred years, as well as how an increasing percentage of the population has become innately authoritarian over time. An important reason for this is that the Nordic percentage of the white population has slipped from around 70% of the white population in 1861 to less than 25% today. To the extent that both the American Revolution and Protestant Reformation took place in majority "Nordic" or "Nordic-Celtic" countries, one could argue that on a deep sociological level, America has effectively reversed both the American Revolution and Protestant Reformation in the last century (more on "Nordics" later in this section). The growing police state and continuing pattern of "false flag" attacks and other major deceptions that I document in the Trilogy are symptoms of this trend. I address this issue in greater detail in the aforementioned "Handling Real Nazis" section of Chapter 34 of the Trilogy.

Using this framework, we can now plug sample ideologies into
our matrix to provide a clearer example for the reader:

Environmental
(leftist)

Genetic
(rightist)

Central
-ized
(more
top
down)

Communism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism,
most forms of internationalist socialismPre-WWII Stalinism, 1920's Italian and Spanish FascismThe Neo-Jacobin Welfare-Warfare State (ie. The current
U.S. Government, to include its Armed Forces and
security agencies)
Current U.S. Democratic and Republican parties"Modern" Liberalism and "Modern" Conservatism. 20th century "populism"
Most American establishment pro-central bank, pro-govt
spending and interventionist economic theories:
Keynesianism, Monetarism, and Supply Side economics.
Religious examples: State-sponsored medieval Christianity,
the authoritarian side of Islam, Buddhism, and other
universalistic "revealed" or "mystery"
religions Politics often focus on threats to factional interests
and forms of " war."
Ethical systems tend to be duty-based in line with
liberal ideological dogma.

German National Socialism under Adolf Hitler Italian and Spanish Fascism after their alliances
with NazisZionism as practiced by authoritarian Jews in IsraelCode of BushidoJapanese keiretsu corporate systemThe trend of Post WWII StalinismCurrent de facto Chinese Communist PartyMany American Indian Tribal Cos.Jewish, Sicilian, Chinese etc. mafiasVarious form of racial supremacism and/or imperialismReligious examples: Judaism, Confucianism, and other
authoritarian or authoritative ethno-tribal religions
Politics often focus on a "top down" response
threats to heritage, tribal identity, and forms of
"race war"Ethical systems tend to be duty-based in line with
tribal traditions

AnarchistsGreensHippies, yippies, beatniks, bohemians, and other
countercultureMost contemporary alienated, anti-authoritarian
artists and intellectuals.Most "rugged individualist" yuppiesAnarcho-LibertariansAyn Rand's "Objectivism"Many secular humanistsMost contemporary American Libertarians, Most contemporary laissez-faire and extreme pro-free
trade economists.Contemporary Austrian School of EconomicsThe psychological school of "behaviorism"Politics often focus on threats to individual liberty
and to entrepreneurial economics or "value
war" (see discussion in mutualism vs. parasitism
section of this series) Religion: Most Wiccans. Most New Age pagans and
other religious cults. Various Christian denominations
and sects, to include grass roots charismatic or
evangelical splinter groups, although the Christian groups are typically a mixture of scriptural authoritarianism combined with political decentralization and theological leftism. Ethical systems of secularists tend towards pure contractualism
and utilitarianism.

Most forms of de facto 19th century American classical
liberalism, populism, and conservatism, to include
19th century British Whigs and some ToriesAmerican Old Right, Paleo-ConservatismEmergent fields of behavioral economics and behavioral
financePre-Civil War U.S. and State Gov'ts
U.S. Articles of Confederation, Confederate Constitution,
original U.S. Constitution
Old Icelandic, Swiss, Dutch, republics
Ancient Greek and Roman republics
Religious examples: Old Norse Asatru, ancient Celtic-Druidic,
early Greco-Roman, ancient Aryan Hindu, and other
grass roots Indo-European tribal, "natural."
or "folk tradition" religionsPolitics often focus on threats to "popular
sovereignty," a complex concept which combines
a concern for grass roots individual and group liberty
combined with the need for the grass roots cohesive
power required to defend and assert common interests,
typically based on shared culture and ancestry.Ethics tend towards a mixture of pure contractualism
and utilitarianism and duty to tribe

Please note the addition of the "z"
axis for "mutualism" (producers) vs. "parasitism"
(criminality)
to make this a 3-D cube.

Decen-
tralized
(More
bottom
up)

How all of the perspectives relate to each other

This
conceptualization depicted above is intended to be an interactive
paradigm. Its real value comes when it helps someone see how all
components relate to each other as moving parts in an overall
system. The following are some key properties:

a) Every one
of the matrix boxes depicted above reflects a valid aspect of
human nature and hence must be seriously weighed and addressed
in formulating sane political and economic policy.

b) There is no such thing as a perfect ideological perspective
that can remain on autopilot and do nothing but good things for
a society. Each viewpoint carries with it both strengths and vulnerabilities.
Under certain social situations, each perspective can become twisted
and even turned on its head. In addition, societies may need to
change their ideological posture back and forth between different
perspectives to react to different forms of social stress.

As one obvious example, when countries come under military attack,
they usually feel that they need to become more top down or authoritarian
to quickly and decisively respond. They also tend to shift to
the environmental or leftist viewpoint when they are forced to
find as many allies as possible in limited time, or when quantity
becomes more important than quality. Conversely, they shift to
the genetic or rightist viewpoint when their time preference horizon
stretches out, and they require quality over quantity.

A dramatic example took place during World War II on the Eastern
Front, where Hitler's Waffen S.S. shifted to the ideological left
as it started running low on replacements. Paradoxically, Stalin's
Red Army shifted to the ideological right as it kept collapsing
before Hitler's blitzkrieg.

At the onset of the war, the Waffen S. S. required
proof of German ancestry for membership. As Germany began
to experience catastrophic losses on the Eastern Front, the Waffen
S. S. opened itself up to different ethnicities and nationalities,
to include Muslim units. Dr. Josef Goebbels broadened his propaganda
focus from defending "Germandom" to a broader crusade
to shield Europe and Western Civilization against Bolshevism.
A famous example of a foreign unit was the Waffen S.S. Charlemagne
Division made up almost entirely of Frenchmen. It fought stubbornly
against the Red Army despite extreme
casualties.

The magnificent statue "Mother
Russia Calls For!" at the Stalingrad Battlefield
site suggests an ideological transition in addition
to a commemoration of heroism

Paradoxically, Stalin's
Red Army moved towards the ideological right while Hitler's
armies moved towards the left. As Hitler's panzers closed in
Moscow, Wilmot Robertson writes in The Dispossessed
Majority about how Stalin tore up the Marxist-Lennist
rule book. He reopened the churches, restored officer rank privileges,
and redefined the war as a Germanic-Slavic race war instead
of a global class struggle. He maintained units by race, ethnicity,
and region of origin on the belief that these things significantly
boost unit cohesion and resolve. He even made a racist speech
at the end of the war citing a disproportionate role of the
Great Russian white people in achieving victory. Ironically,
when President Harry Truman initiated racial integration of
U.S. military units in the late 1940's, he moved further to
the left on military racial issues than Stalin's Red Army.

c) Rather than
go to extremes in one particular perspective, a prosperous society
usually needs to achieve some kind of ideological balance between
each of the primary four perspectives (environmental top down,
genetic top down, genetic bottom up, and environmental bottom
up) while simultaneous keeping its guard up against the "third
dimension," which is criminal infiltration (the "parasite"
side of the "mutualism" vs "parasitism"
duality).

d) True statesmanship is difficult, because as we cross diagonally
from one primary perspective to another, (such as from genetic
bottom up to environmental top down, which has in fact been
the main trend of American politics in the last two hundred
years), the political and economic policies that make sense
are almost the exact opposite of each other. Similarly, the
policies that make sense from a genetic top down viewpoint are
often the opposite of the environmental bottom up viewpoint.

As an example, genetic top down nationalists often favor relatively
high protectionist tariffs, controlled borders, and highly restrictive
immigration, whereas environmental bottom up anarcho-libertarians
typically favor free trade with zero tariffs and wide open borders.
The top down nationalists generally want to fund a larger government,
protect more industries, and sustain a larger military, therefore
it makes sense to have higher tariffs and more border control.
Environmental bottom up anarcho-libertarians want to have very
little government to fund and do not care so much about changes
in demographics or covert political control, and therefore desire
virtually no tariffs, no border control, and no business ownership
restrictions..

Addressing the other diagonal relationship, the genetic bottom
up libertarian racial nationalists want limited government and
maximum entrepreneurship, implying some free trade and limited
tariffs, but not so little border control that they lose control
of the ethno-racial-cultural demographic base inside their country.
Therefore, their tariff policies would be certainly lower than
the "genetic top down" nationalists, but not so low
as the utopian policies desired by the "environmental bottom
up" anarcho libertarians.

Diagonally across from the libertarian racial nationalists,
the "environmental top down" liberal fascists (ie.
the kinds of people who control the U.S. Government today) need
to support a big government to carry out their neo-Jacobin,
welfare-warfare policies. This includes supporting social-reengineering
schemes that favor Jewish and other minority interests at home,
while simultaneously favoring massive overseas military interventions
that aid Israel and big crony oil companies overseas.

"Environmental top down" liberal fascists require
generally higher taxes to fund their big government programs.
However, the high taxation policies are usually filled with
big loopholes for crony capitalists and other political favorites.
One example involves tarrif policies. Although tarrifs are at
root simply one more form of taxation, namely an excise on international
trade, liberal fascists in America today have low tarrifs in
place that enable internationalist business cronies to outsource
jobs overseas to score quick profits. They also neglect border
control and quietly encourage an influx of low cost Third World
immigrant to provide cheap labor for crony domestic industries.
However, one can count on the liberal fascists to keep de facto
forms of high taxation in place in most other areas, such as
by debauching the currency to pay for goverment programs through
quiet inflation, or by finding more ingenious ways to soak the
dwindling white middle class through progressive income, property,
and excise taxes.

e) As the real opinions of politicians move increasingly to
the right, they often try harder to disguise them in their public
commentary. This is because the genetic viewpoint tends to arouse
stronger personal emotions in the general public than the environmental/leftist
viewpoint, making it harder to avoid alienating people. This
is particularly true in multi-racial, multicultural societies.
One reason is that while people can change what they have learned,
they cannot change the genes they are born with. Therefore political
ideas that go against their genetic interests appear more threatening.

Interestingly enough, there was even some soft-peddling of certain
genetic issues by Adolf Hitler in the Third Reich in the name
of political expediency. While aggressively promoting pan-German
tribalism and denouncing Jews, Hitler was careful to play down
differences between the Nordic and Alpine branches of the Caucasoid
race, and even allowed German citizenship rights to Germans
who were one quarter Jewish. In Germany the Alpines, who predominate
in southern regions and who tend to be somewhat more authoritarian,
significantly outnumber pure Nordics, who are clustered closer
to the Baltic and North Sea and who tend to be more instinctively
libertarian. This reconciliative policy carried over to religion,
where Hitler understated differences between German Catholics,
who have historically tended to be more Alpine, and German Protestants,
who have tended to be more Nordic. Lastly, in an effort to reduce
internal class strife, Hitler used leftist rhetoric designed
to unite Germany's working classes with the aristocratic class.
He ruthlessly purged socialist leaders of his S.A. in 1933 who
had threatened aristocratic interests. Nazi newsreels even showed
factory owners sitting at tables and breaking bread with workers
during cultural and political events.

f) Certain societies may tend to be overweight in one particular
ideological perspective compared to another over the long run,
based upon such factors as their particular cultural traditions
and their peculiar distributions of innate temperamental characteristics
within their gene pool (both of which are highly interrelated).
As two examples, Chinese leadership has been marked by autocracy
and xenophobia through long periods of history, suggesting a
genetic top down approach as its natural orientation. In contrast,
among all the branches of Caucasoid peoples, the Nordic peoples,
closely followed by their Celtic cousins, have tended to be
more instinctively libertarian and hence more genetic bottom
up as a long term baseline orientation.

Examples of Nordic libertarianism include Anglo-Saxon-descended
parliamentarians and republicans in England, America, Australia,
and New Zealand. They also include Dutch-descended Boers in
South Africa and founders of the Dutch Republic, founders of
Scandinavian parliamentary bodies, and the founders of early
Roman and ancient Grecian Republics.

Almost all areas of Europe that experienced invasions by Nordic
tribes after the downfall of the Western Roman Empire in the
4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, such as Germany, Spain, France,
and northern Italy, saw changes towards more decentralization
and even parliamentary institutions. The Novgorod Feudal Republic of western Russia had a strong Nordic influence, in fact the word "Rus," from which we drive "Russia," came from Swedish Vikings. We also see a Nordic influence the medieval "Cortes" or parliamentary systems founded by Visigoths (a Nordic people) in Spain. (The term "blue blood" for "aristocrat" came from Visigoths whose skin was so light that one could see blue veins). The Visigoths also swept through North Africa, and many of their blond-haired and light-eyed descendents would later become Caliphs and help organize and energize the Islamic high culture of the Middle Ages. (There were also prior residuals of prior migrations; for example the Berbers of North Africa show many distinctly Indo-European or "Nordic" characteristics relative to Arabs). The Lombards were a Nordic/Germanic people who settled heavily in Northern Italy falling the collapse of Rome, and their descendents, along with other descendents of earlier Nordic and Celtic migrations (for example the Sabine and Oscian tribes whose descendents helped found the Roman Republic originated in Germany) later became overly represented in leading the Italian city states and Renaissance.

In the 16th and 17th centuries,
almost all areas of Europe that had a majority Nordic population,
regardless of differences in language and nationality, went
Protestant and experienced dramatic changes towards more decentralized
church government. The rest of Europe remained Catholic or Eastern
Orthodox. Central to the "protest" part of the "Protestant" idea was the concept that individuals should have some freedom to study and interpret the Bible on their own without being held captive to highly centralized church dogma and traditions. An Icelandic writer once referred to his fellow nationals
as "an aristocratic people with egalitarian tendencies,"
which goes a long way towards summarizing the "genetic
bottom up" perspective.

Incidentally, I use the term "Nordic" quite a lot
in this article series. One reason is that I have an axe to
grind regarding most contemporary anarcho-libertarians who completely
ignore the role of race and ethnicity in the history of libertarianism.
However, please be aware that I use the term "Nordic"
very loosely. The Celts are very closely related to Nordics
in terms of their institutions, physical type, and their close
geographic proximity to Nordics throughout history. In a number
of places where I talk about "Nordic" the historical
reality may have been closer to something like 60% Nordic and
40% Celtic, or perhaps even majority Celtic in other instances.
For the purposes of this paper, it is not particularly important
to split hairs over what was exactly "Nordic" or "Celtic"
at certain moments and places in history.

As another important aside, I once had a phone conversation
with a prominent American racial nationalist activist who read
the last few paragraphs above and was very unhappy with them.
My frequent use of the word "Nordic" really irritated
him. He was adamant that there are quite a few whites from Spain,
Italy, and elsewhere in southern Europe who are "just as
good" as whites from Northern Europe. (I don't disagree
with him on that point). He believes that white America is suffering
an extreme demographic crisis and that all whites from different
areas of Europe, north and south and east and west, must all
pull together if we are to survive. (I don't disagree with him
on that point, either). He was very concerned that my discussion
of distinctions within the white racial family (Nordics, Celts,
Alpines, Mediterraneans, etc) may unnecessarily alienate certain
whites or foster divisiveness when we desperately need to be
united.

My own response is that I am agnostic about what approach to
white activisim is going to work. Maybe a pan-white appeal is
the best way to go. Or maybe that sounds nice in theory but
is too abstract for most whites in practice.

Maybe most whites need to focus on more specific ancestral and
cultural roots to find the necessary motivation for effective
action. Maybe Nordic and Celtic Americans need to start heading
for the exit doors to light a fire under the rear ends of the
rest of white America. (Somewhat analogous to the way the Protestant
Revolution in Northern Europe stimulated reform within the Catholic
Church everywhere else in Europe).

To add fuel this fire, many Mestizo activists are already talking
about incorporating various southwestern U.S. states into a
new country called Azatlan. We have already experienced de facto
secession to the extent that many parts of New York City, Los
Angeles, and Washington D.C. are virtual extensions of Israel.
It is also worth noting that all the repressive measures currently
being instituted by the U.S. Government to hold everything together
at all costs are actually adding fuel to this fire by making
our chains more uncomfortable.

Perhaps it is a combination of the pan-white appeal and an appeal to specific European ancestry that comprises the best
approach. My best guess is that this is the best way to go,
but in truth I do not know for sure what the right answer is.
Then again, maybe there are so many wild cards and variables
at work in America today that the "answer" will change
as our society undergoes major upheavals in the years ahead.

I would prefer to simply describe reality as best I understand
it and let the reader decide how he or she wants to use this
knowledge. I would also observe that the Anglo-Saxon Puritans
who founded New England and other hardshell Nordics in American
history have had some peculiar ideological characteristics that
have worked at cross purposes with other rightists in America
at various times in history, and we need to get this out in
the open and analyze it if we are going to come to grips with
it. In fact, I hope to eventually offer some books by Dr. Lothrop
Stoddard, Madison Grant, and other famous American racialist
writers that dealt with these issues.

Besides, this web site is meant to be more generally "analytical"
in nature rather than directly "activistic" in favor
of a political group, although obviously I cannot help but express
many of my own feelings at times. I feel strongly that survival
of my own people is nonnegotiable, and we must not allow ourselves
to be bullied out of exercising our basic human rights, to include
our right to popular soverignty and self-determination. I also
believe that the reader has a right to form his or her own views
on this issue without being coerced or indoctrinated by the
U.S. Government, national media, or other special interest pressure
groups.

g ) As previously mentioned, I have construed the "mutualism"
vs "parasitism" duality from sociobiology. This "z"
axis loosely corresponds with such popular jargon as "honest
producers" on the one hand and "deceitful and exploitive
criminals" on the other.

This area also warrants some additional explanation.

The humorist Mark Twain once quipped that the U.S. Congress
is America's only distinctly native criminal class. Certainly
we need to also show on our diagram how ideology can become
a mere play toy for a significant number political, financial,
and media leaders in Washington and New York. They seem to only
be selfishly interested in power and money without regard to
their destructiveness to society --or for that matter the entire
world.

In my opinion, "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial
nationalist leaders are generally the least likely to be totally criminal. Conversely, "environment
top down" liberal fascist leaders have historically tended
to be the most dangerous and criminal of all groups.

An excellent contemporary example of the latter dangerous group
includes Jewish neo-conservatives such as Perle, Wolfowitz,
Crystal, Feith, Abrams, and Libby who dragged America into the
Iraq invasion and occupation based upon a "clean break"
policy document created by Israeli-dual citizens in the 1990's.
They trumpeted the phony pretext of nonexistent weapons of mass
destruction. All of this is documented in Michael Collins Piper's The High Priests of War.
Mr. Piper shows how many neo-cons are former Trotskyite wolves
parading about in sheep's clothing with "conservative"
rhetoric. The Jewish Lobby's pernicious influence is also denounced
in the Mearsheimer and Walt Harvard/Chicago study described in my "Critical
Issues" section.

"Environmental top down" leaders such as Mao Tse Tung
(over 70 million), Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, "King
Lincoln," and Robespierre have produced vastly greater
body counts as a group than "genetic top down"
leaders such as Adolf Hitler and post Nazi-pact Benito Mussolini
and Francisco Franco.

All of these "top down" governments have killed far
more people on average by several exponential orders of magnitude
than any "genetic bottom up" classical liberals who
believed in limited government such as President Thomas Jefferson
and British Prime Minister William Gladstone.

In regard to the first group of "environmental top down"
leaders, apparently it becomes much easier to go on a mass killing
spree if one views human beings as mere interchangeable programmable
units with no significant ancestral or cultural ties who have
to be controlled by fear. I explain all this in more detail
later when I discuss the moral high ground of the "genetic
bottom up" 19th century classical liberal political plank
that characterized early America. Unfortunately our government
has since gravitated away from that area and into neo-Jacobinism,
which is of course one of the most dangerous ideological perspectives
of all.

Needless to say, I think that someone like Cambodia's Pol Pot,
who butchered about a third of his own population, fits inside
the "environmental top down parasitism" cube in our
3-D schemata. In contrast, President Thomas Jefferson seems
to fit inside the "genetic bottom up mutualist" (or
"producer") cube. Once again, let us hope that we
can pull our current national leaders back from their criminal
activities before they destroy more than the hundreds of thousands
of people who have already been ruined by depleted uranium,
unjustified wars of aggression, and other outrages.

ontheissues.org This is another web site that utilizes
a somewhat similar paradigm is, except they put decentralization
at the top rather bottom of the scale, and associate "populism"
with "authoritarianism (which I do not). I developed the
paradigm on this page completely independent of this web site.